1990
DOI: 10.2307/2523428
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the Evidence on Union Employment and Wages

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
20
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Using industry level data, Linneman, Wachter, and Carter (1990) found a strong relationship between the size of the union wage effect and employment growth in a given industry, and concluded that the union wage effect has been responsible for as much as 64% of the decline in union density in the U.S. private sector (excluding construction) in recent years.…”
Section: Theoretical and Empirical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Using industry level data, Linneman, Wachter, and Carter (1990) found a strong relationship between the size of the union wage effect and employment growth in a given industry, and concluded that the union wage effect has been responsible for as much as 64% of the decline in union density in the U.S. private sector (excluding construction) in recent years.…”
Section: Theoretical and Empirical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clearly, recent studies in both the United States (Linneman, Wachter, and Carter 1990) and Canada (Troy 1990(Troy ,1992, using macrolevel data, do indicate a dramatic decline in union density in the private sector since the mid-1970s. This decline, however, could be due to several different factors, such as an inability to organize new firms, an increasing rate of decertifications, a higher closure rate for union firms than for nonunion firms, or slower employment growth in union firms than in nonunion firms.…”
Section: Theoretical and Empirical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of papers investigating the union wage premium during the 1970s suggests instead that union wage premium gains were basically accidental, the result of unanticipated inflation plus the COLAs that helped protect real wages of union members in the 1970s, when the bulk of the premium increase occurred (Wachter, 1986;Wachter and Carter, 1989;Linneman, Wachter, and Carter, 1990). 10 Wages failed to adjust quickly, once mistakes in expectations became evident, because labor law, which takes the stance that the two parties are part of a longlived and continuing relationship, and which requires that a firm must bargain with the union, makes drastic changes in contracts very costly (Wachter, 1986).…”
Section: Two Alternative Explanationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The wage gap in these sectors increased during the expansions between 1975 and 1979 and persisted after the 1982 recession (Edwards and Swaim, 1986;Linneman and Wachter, 1986). As of 1988, relatively little downward adjustment had occurred despite large declines in union employment (Linneman, Wachter, and Carter, 1990;Wachter and Carter, 1989).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All remaining errors are attributed to the author. [Lewis, 1983;Linneman et al, 1990;Leonard, 1992;Pantuosco et al, 2001;Vedder and Gallaway, 2002] and Britain [Metcalf, 1993[Metcalf, , 1994Addison et al, 2001Addison et al, , 2003. Therefore, it is worth extending the issue to other countries to see if there exist any similarities or differences in the effects of unionization compared to those of the U.S. and Britain.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%